The initial New York Times profile of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan included vague references to a clash with her rabbi over her bat mitzvah service to illustrate Kagan’s “boldness.” The article didn’t elaborate on the nature of the disagreement, leaving readers wondering what kind of challenge the young Jewish girl posed. A follow-up in the NYT explains that Kagan’s Orthodox synagogue hadn’t celebrated the coming-of-age ritual for a girl before, and she was its first.

John Gurzinski /

AP

Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that a memorial cross could constitutionally stand in a nature preserve in the Mojave desert, despite being a religious symbol. The decision raised concern over religious freedom, and the cross was stolen from its mountaintop spot earlier this week. A man who claims to be the thief wrote an anonymous letter against Justice Anthony Kennedy’s remarks and saying he’d return to the cross if a non-sectarian memorial was also erected. “We as a nation need to change the dialogue and stop pretending that this is about a war memorial…. If an appropriate and permanent non-sectarian memorial is placed at the site the cross will be immediately returned….Alternatively, if a place can be found that memorializes the Christian Veterans of WWI that is not on public land the Cross will promptly be forwarded with care and reverence for installation at the private site,” he wrote.

Evangelical Christians continue to call for political reform to address the “moral issue” of immigration. From the blog Religion Clause: Leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Liberty Counsel, the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and others signed a statement for a “just assimilation immigration policy,” which asks that the U.S. secure its borders and allow undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. to go through a program for legalization. Also, the National Association of Evangelicals is lobbying for politicians to take a bipartisan approach to reform.

30 Responses

I have a sincere question about the Mohave cross. If the VFW placed it in the park without the permission of the NPS, why can’t an individual *remove* it without the permission of the NPS? Isn’t what this person did essentially equivalent to what those who erected the cross did in the first place?

Furthermore, is there anything stopping any of us from putting up an equivalent memorial of another faith or philosophy on federal land without getting permission first?

What a crock, the person should be hunted and arrested for theft. This is a mockery of laws and the judicial system. The court’s have upheld that as a country we can celebrate our religion if we want too. The fact is that the people had permission and they were affirmed this by law. There is no such law providing for separation of Church and state. Look it up. There’s an amendment saying that the Government cannot make you be a part of a certain religion, but that’s it, you can be whatever you want. It also nowhere says that you can’t have something religious on PUBLIC land. Rediculous that we still allow these “PC” morons to rule. Everyone needs to go read their Constitution again, they would be amazed as to what’s going on these days that violate it.

The cross was no longer on public land. Ownership had been transferred to a veteran’s group (I believe that a land swap was involved.) If you go to “Mojave Memorial Cross” in Wikipedia it states, “On April 28, 2010, the US Supreme Court ruled on Salazar v. Buono in a 5-4 decision that the cross may stay. The high court ruled there was no violation of the separation of church and state when Congress transferred the land surrounding the cross to a veteran’s group.[6] Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm”

If the veteran’s memorial was no longer on public property according to the Supreme Court decision, the vandals had no right to steal it. In addition, if the memorial was on private land, the veteran’s group did not have any obligation to put up a non-sectarian symbol. Personally, I think the addition of a non-sectarian symbol would be nice, but it would be a choice of the veteran’s group that now have ownership of the land.

Maybe the thief does not understand that the propery is no longer public property. And that he stole the private property – the cross – which was sitting on private property. The land is formerly public property was sold many years ago and is now private.

What you are missing here or purposely disrespecting is that some Veterans installed the Mohave Cross to remember their buddies lost in a war they were sent to.

.

I think we ought to chum the leftist jerk who could not accept the decision of a Court ( which all you lefties expect us on the right to do when one of your activist judges tries to legislate ) take the Cross and reinstall it and then turn the Cross Thief over to Veterans of Foreign Wars, 60 and older, for 2.5 minutes. :-})

I know something about litigating religious displays on public property. A Ten Commandments monument was bashed as it stood on public property. Removed to a Fraternal Order of Eagles house, it was nevertheless bashed again, this time with irreparable damage. These are legal but mainly questions of political philosophy. We ask and answer them in a civil manner. What was done in this case, and others, is nothing short of an attack on our good American legal system.

Arlington National Cemetary does not have white crosses, they are curved top headstones, where the family can choose from a variety of markers at the top, a Cross, a Star of David, etc. I think there are 30+ choices.

The cross was placed there at a time when our country was only just getting started down this (not founded in the founders beliefs) progressive, seperation of church and state road. Our founders never meant seperation of church and state. They only meant to protect people’s choice of religion and thus not endorse and specific religion. Not total abolishment of religious beliefs. I pray for our country.

Typical liberal. They want to force their views down our throats! Why don’t you quit worrying about what might offend me. You are offensive to me by being offended! We owe trillions of dollars and you are worried about a cross? Did that cross hurt you or take your job away?

“ejahnke” displays all the typical sociopathic violent tendencies of extremist religion, and also the hypocrisy. When christians like Eric Rudolph, Scott Roeder and James Kopp commit terrorist bombings and murder people, those such as “ejahnke” and his/her ilk get upset that charges are even laid against them.

The rabidly religious want to commit violence with impunity, and be protected from any and all criticism, let alone any violence.

The removal of the cross was done without permission, but considering the vandalism committed by religious extremists against other religions or non-religious property (e.g. broken windows on cars with a “Darwin fish”), the removal of the cross and promise to return it pales in comparison.

P Smith, did you just make up that about “broken windows on cars with a Darwin fish” or can you prove that the windows of a car that happened to have a Darwin fish, were targeted by religious extremists?

P Smith wrote : “The removal of the cross was done without permission, but considering the vandalism committed by religious extremists against other religions or non-religious property (e.g. broken windows on cars with a “Darwin fish”), the removal of the cross and promise to return it pales in comparison”.

That pretty much says it all to those of you who want to convert everyone to their religion. Also if the founding fathers had wanted everyone to be religious they wouldn’t have started the preamble of the Constitution with the phrase “We the people” meaning a government of the people and not a government of god?

This is only a fraction of the christian hypocrisy towards vandalism. I was able to find in five minutes.

Now the question: Is “deogcat” merely incompetent at research, dishonest (especially for inferring that I lied), a hypo-christian who wants to rationalize vandalism, or just too damned lazy to make the effort to look and chose instead to speak from ignorance?

“The traitor” – Whoever took the cross, and it was a big sucker with a stone base so we’re talking at least 2 or 3 people plus driver(s), they are thieves. Were you suggesting they are veterans (therefore traitors to vets) or members of the clergy (traitors to the Church)? And on what evidence?

“should be hunted down and executed” – Really? for theft/vandalism? Did you learn Civics from the Taliban, dude?

“like the dog” – Speaking as a dog lover, I find that offensive.

My point is that Ejahnke not only does not represent the views of more than 0.005% of Christians, he reminds us that the people who stole the cross do not represent the views of whatever group they claim to represent. While I am a conservative Evangelical, I find that Atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, Wiccans and others I know are all good, gentle people who have no desire to hurt or insult anoyone else for their beliefs. When P Smith or Ejahnke choose outrage and escalation, they do not represent what most of us want, and I would hope we can all keep in mind that crimes and hatred are the paths chosen by few people, and we should focus on the good, even where we disagree on what path to take to practice that good. We all love innocence, respect integrity, and hope for improved understanding. Let thieves, hatemongers and malcontents not make us forget our common hope and grounds for mutual respect.

The man who stole the cross is just as much an American hero as those the cross attempts to memorialize. Evangelical government officials tried to end run around the Constitution when they gave the land on which the cross stands away to prevent its removal. They showed their prejudice when they denied a Buddhist shrine be erected next to the cross; and demonstrated their hypocrisy when they defended the cross as: “irrelevant because it is out in the middle of nowhere” and have now changed their tune about the cross’ relevance since its removal.

A line has been drawn out in that desert sand; and I want to be next in line to remove the cross if it is returned. If you don’t understand why, educate yourself on freedom or leave my country.

As the letter is anonymous, and as I am unaware of any pictures of the stolen cross being included with it, I am skeptical that the person that wrote the letter actually took the cross. It could have been stolen for scrap metal by someone else, and the person that wrote the letter could be a liberal using the incident as an opportunity to put his pro-separation of church and state beliefs in the public forum, or a conservative that wrote a fake letter looking to escalate the anti-liberal backlash that the theft has generated.

If the person that stole the cross is also the person that wrote the letter, and his beliefs are truly stated, then he is an absolute idiot. Stealing a cross from veterans will do much more harm than good for your cause. It’s like promoting a pro-choice agenda by going to the maternity ward dressed as Jesus and punching babies in the mouth.

Re: Larissa..”I am not a secularist, but I do believe in the truth over rhetoric.”

You may not be a secularist, but you are certainly not correct. The headstones in the Arlington National Cemetery have a prominent cross, some inside a circle, and some crosses w/o the circle, located on the front of the grave headstone. There are others that have the Star of David in the same location. In the older sections of the ANC where numerous graves of fallen soldiers are marked with crosses only. I know this to be truthful because I have been there.

Although the cross was on private land, the Constitutional question is still valid. The tiny patch of land was transferred specifically so that the religious memorial could stay where it was. The US doesn’t go around selling tiny islands of land in the middle of national parks to other religious groups so that they can put their symbolry there, so the fact that it did so for a Christian memorial still could be seen as an endorsement of Christian religion.

lol@Clif – You told Larissa that she was wrong, paraphrased her statement, and then informed her that your paraphrase was true in place of her original statement. Her point was that the tombstones themselves are not crosses, but rather have multiple possible engravings which the family members can pick among. This is almost exactly what you claimed when you corrected her. Next time, correct someone with whom you actually disagree.